Overly serious law enforcement officials saw that as a terrorist threat. It's worth noting that airport officials didn't seem to think it was a serious threat, but understood that it was just a frustrated passenger venting. Still, the case went forward and he not only lost but then lost again on appeal. The case seems to get more farcical each level up the chain it goes. The latest is that, when the case got to the UK High Court, it was heard by two judges who couldn't come to agreement, so the whole appeal needs to be reheard with a three judge panel. Why they didn't do that the first time around is not explained.

Either way, it seems bizarre that tweeting an obvious joke should not only lead to convictions, but such a long and extended judicial process. Talk about creating chilling effects. The case has taken on lots of publicity in the UK, with a number of celebrities pledging support. The BBC article has a quote from Chambers' supporter comedian Al Murray, who found the whole situation laughably ridiculous:

"Paul's tweet has gone the full distance from joke to tragedy to farce via the High Court. We've all got our fingers crossed and will carry on fundraising."

I believe what the article is saying about the appeal is that the case was tried before a magistrate, appealed to a judge who upheld the magistrate's decision, and will now go before a three judge panel of the High Court now that two judges who sit on that court have agreed that the appeal should be heard.

Re:

I believe what the article is saying about the appeal is that the case was tried before a magistrate, appealed to a judge who upheld the magistrate's decision, and will now go before a three judge panel of the High Court now that two judges who sit on that court have agreed that the appeal should be heard.

Not quite. There was an appeal to the High Court already, but a split decision, so it will be reheard by three judges.

Re:

This isn't about being a possible threat. The guy was already determined not to be a threat. His post was determined to have been joking or sarcastic. Now it is being debated whether to punish him ANYWAY.

so who was the prick that actually started the whole arrest and court procedure? surely, he/she is the one that needs to be prosecuted for wasting court time and costing a fortune? the UK is getting more like the US every day as far as ridiculous happenings, particularly court-wise, is concerned. is Obama working Cameron or what?

Re:

Re: Backbone

Correct. This is s standard case of bureaucratic incompetence, using one of the standard tools of incompetent bureaucrats, imaginary threats. That gives them a nice diversion so they do not have to be bothered doing their real jobs.

Alert politicians should be able to recognise this pattern easily and sack the perps promptly. That is why politicians are given power over bureaucrats. Alas, there is usually not the political will. When there is political will, it is just wonderful, malfunctioning bureaucrats lose their jobs straight away and it has a most salutary effect on the other bureaucrats. Unfortunately, the whole thing can then blow up as the opposition tries to make political capital over it. Hence the timidity of politicians. They should grow a backbone.